Hood v. Director, TDCJ-CID

E.D. Texas

Hood v. Director, TDCJ-CID

DecidedMay 2, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-00458

StatusUnknown

This text of Hood v. Director, TDCJ-CID (Hood v. Director, TDCJ-CID) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hood v. Director, TDCJ-CID, (E.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION RODNEY DALE HOOD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-458 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Movant Rodney Dale Hood, a prisoner in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed this Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the motion.

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Movant filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all the pleadings and the relevant case law, the Court concludes that Movant’s objections lack merit. Citing Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F. 3d 884 (5th Cir. 2007), Movant asserts that the district court has jurisdiction to consider a Rule 60 motion filed in a habeas proceeding. In this case, Movant is not challenging the result of a federal habeas proceeding. Instead, Movant is attempting to file a new federal proceeding challenging a state court conviction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) does not give a federal district court authority to overturn a criminal conviction imposed by a state court. United States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (Sth Cir. 1999), ORDER Accordingly, Movant’s objections [Dkt. 17] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 12] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. SIGNED this 4th day of May, 2022.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION RODNEY DALE HOOD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-458 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Movant Rodney Dale Hood, a prisoner in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed this Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the motion.

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Movant filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all the pleadings and the relevant case law, the Court concludes that Movant’s objections lack merit. Citing Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F. 3d 884 (5th Cir. 2007), Movant asserts that the district court has jurisdiction to consider a Rule 60 motion filed in a habeas proceeding. In this case, Movant is not challenging the result of a federal habeas proceeding. Instead, Movant is attempting to file a new federal proceeding challenging a state court conviction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) does not give a federal district court authority to overturn a criminal conviction imposed by a state court. United States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (Sth Cir. 1999), ORDER Accordingly, Movant’s objections [Dkt. 17] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 12] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. SIGNED this 4th day of May, 2022.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hood v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-director-tdcj-cid-txed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack